You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Just got back from an IMAX 3D presentation.
Not as good as Part I. Not even close.

This series went from "Star Trek for Dummies" to "Michael Bay's Star Trek" in less than a movie. Sad.

I especially did not like the not-so-subtle nods (in fact, it borders on shameless plagiarism) of another classic Star Trek movie (Note: Not the one with V'Ger or the whales). The only redeeming factor was Benedict Cumberbatch's John Harrison (that was his name, right?) going Hulk Smash on some pesky Klingons in a chaotic set piece (Note: I say "chaotic" because there is no sense of geography, just like a Michael Bay movie). One thing I gotta say about that John Harrison guy: Bro, you've got some serious anger issues. Like, drink some Green Tea and stuff.

Anyway...

Of every candidate, Disney chose this JJ Abrams douche to direct Star Wars?
On release day I suspect I will be at home clipping my toe nails.

I just came back from watching this movie. You think it's a "nod" to Wrath. You think it's a ripoff of Wrath.

Is this one of the IMDB kiddie forums, or is this TypoC?

It seems as if you think you are mature enough to see through Abrams' gimmick in this movie. But I'm afraid that you're not yet mature enough to see that it's no gimmick. And it's hardly plagiarism, because

if it weren't for Old Spock's timely words of advice, the ending would have been quite different.

I just came back from watching this movie. You think it's a "nod" to Wrath. You think it's a ripoff of Wrath.

Is this one of the IMDB kiddie forums, or is this TypoC?

It seems as if you think you are mature enough to see through Abrams' gimmick in this movie. But I'm afraid that you're not yet mature enough to see that it's no gimmick. And it's hardly plagiarism, because

if it weren't for Old Spock's timely words of advice, the ending would have been quite different.

Well, gee. Glad you liked it.

Originally Posted by Mal+

So the part that WAS a ripoff of a different movie, you thought was badass.

As an individual moment, yes. It was shockingly brutal for a PG-13 movie.
Balls out, baby. Balls out.

Edit: Read this review...Nordling takes the words right out of my mouth:

I'd give it a positive rating, because I found it enjoyable, but I think I liked the 2009 version better.

Think about what happened:

1. They flew the Enterprise to Kronos, then back to earth. Not much really happened.

2. Too much was obvious setup. Spock was in danger, but not really because Kirk beams him up. Kirk loses his command but not really, because Pike is conveniently going to die. Scotty leaves the Enterprise, just so he can conveniently be planted on the new big secret ship and disable it. The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable, so we know later what Spock's play will likely be when the time comes. Bones gets a blood sample from Kahn which he tests on a dead tribble for kicks, and we know it has rejuvenating properties (we already saw a dying girl be restored by it), so when Kirk and Spock switch places to pull a Kubayashi Maru, it loses some impact because we know it's not going to last. I mean, they did a good job of not pulling anything blindly out of their ass to resolve a situation unfairly, but so much was telegraphed that it was all rather predictable and by the numbers.

3. Oh, the old "admiral wants to start a war so he uses the good guys as pawns" trick. Wheee.

I was moved in spots but more by what I brought to the movie than the movie itself.

Also, lots of trek trivia points (old series, although I think the Section 31 is a ref from DSN) which might either please or annoy fans. Finally the banter was funny in spots but just too scripted, it didn't feel organic sometimes. At least they meta'ed it once in a while so that we knew they knew it was too predictable too.

Cumberbatch was good. I found him intimidating, he carried himself well

It was also nice to Spock be a badass and go a few rounds.

Originally Posted by Duck_of_Death

Edit: Read this review...Nordling takes the words right out of my mouth:

Generally, I do agree with those criticisms... most of all, with the exposition on the Scene Not To Be Named

as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn.

I also agree with the criticisms about the tech plotholes.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

I'd give it a positive rating, because I found it enjoyable, but I think I liked the 2009 version better.

Think about what happened:

1. They flew the Enterprise to Kronos, then back to earth. Not much really happened.

2. Too much was obvious setup. Spock was in danger, but not really because Kirk beams him up. Kirk loses his command but not really, because Pike is conveniently going to die. Scotty leaves the Enterprise, just so he can conveniently be planted on the new big secret ship and disable it. The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable, so we know later what Spock's play will likely be when the time comes. Bones gets a blood sample from Kahn which he tests on a dead tribble for kicks, and we know it has rejuvenating properties (we already saw a dying girl be restored by it), so when Kirk and Spock switch places to pull a Kubayashi Maru, it loses some impact because we know it's not going to last. I mean, they did a good job of not pulling anything blindly out of their ass to resolve a situation unfairly, but so much was telegraphed that it was all rather predictable and by the numbers.

3. Oh, the old "admiral wants to start a war so he uses the good guys as pawns" trick. Wheee.

I was moved in spots but more by what I brought to the movie than the movie itself.

Also, lots of trek trivia points (old series, although I think the Section 31 is a ref from DSN) which might either please or annoy fans. Finally the banter was funny in spots but just too scripted, it didn't feel organic sometimes. At least they meta'ed it once in a while so that we knew they knew it was too predictable too.

Cumberbatch was good. I found him intimidating, he carried himself well

It was also nice to Spock be a badass and go a few rounds.

Generally, I do agree with those criticisms... most of all, with the exposition on the Scene Not To Be Named

as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn.

I also agree with the criticisms about the tech plotholes.

Pick it apart, and then come up with a better idea for a movie. You can't.

However, I'm not disagreeing with most of the little nitpickings. But I don't let some continuity errors spoil the movie for me. Or Kirk saying "I'm speaking to the half-human part of you." Huh?

I do disagree with this nitpicking:

"The torpedoes are conveniently unscannable." Yes they were, for the very convenient reason that they concealed some important secrets necessary to making the Admiral's plans come to fruition.

because that's the aspect of the movie that makes some of the other nitpickings make sense, for example:

Scotty had to leave the ship not only because he disagreed with Kirk over signing for something he couldn't identify, but Kirk wanted him to leave because he had fallen for the Admiral's lies about what the torpedoes contained.

And besides:

Your reference to the Kobiyashi Maru incident doesn't make sense to me.

"as well as the big point that Harrison's identity is a big deal to the audience, maybe, but not to Kirk, and thus loses its power to some degree. Basically in ST2, that Kirk was a generation older and he and Kahn had long history together. This Kirk is a young man and has no history with Kahn."

I'll definitely give you that. Consider that the scene in the brig where Harrison revealed his true identity - "I'm Khan" (snarl snarl) - could have been met with some humor by Kirk - "Nice to meet you, Khan" (snarl snarl). The original Khan was much more deceptive, he was more clever about concealing his true psychopathy so he could get what he wants. The new Khan is far more open about it.

-One of the most blatant and central themes of Darkness--that would be vengeance--had been beaten to death in the franchise long before this movie was even in development.

-Or how about the emergence of a "HOLY-SHIT-YOUR-PANTS" size vessel that absolutely outclasses the Enterprise and is magically destroyed by some cheap, seen-it-from-a-mile-away macguffin? Remember that steaming turd Nemesis? Yeah, well that movie actually managed to pull it off with more sophistication than the last two.